PSA: ARC can now call for reviews 90sec after the event

[BG__]

 

[Mop]

There have been some poor uses of technology in every sport over the past decade.

This is probably the worst of any sport.
Everyone involved in this farce - have a look in the ****ing mirror.

This is ****ing shit.

 

[Handsuper47]

Even after all the dumb free kicks I saw get paid on Friday, this is somehow much worse. What the actual f?

 

[The_Todd07]

I'm all for blatant errors to come back after however long it takes, the right decision should trump all.

This however is overturning a decision that was likely correct in the first place.
The back of the post is in line with the back of the goal line, therefore any camera built into the post cannot be in line with the back of the line.
For things in between the goalposts it's not too bad as you have 2 cameras to compare, that's not the case between goalpost and point post though

Looking at the opposite goalpost is going to create an angle and extrapolating that to the opposite point post is going to mean things can be obstructed by the post despite being even a few cm over the line.

 

[hcd199]

Are the rules/regulations governing this process actually available anywhere? There's nothing in the Laws about it, and the Regulations only say that there's a score review system and the GM of Football can appoint someone to be the 'Score Reviewer' and consult with the umpires (so nothing about how that process actually works). It's mad if there's nothing public on it, and we're just supposed to trust that game-affecting officiating happens according to secret procedures...

And if this is all by the book, then the whole thing remains farcical. The actual decision to overrule is dubious at best (IMO the goal umpire's decision that the ball had fully crossed prior to the mark is correct). Regardless, how long is okay between the original decision and the review? Surely 33 seconds of playing time is too much to scrub... and if the ARC have sufficient doubts about a call that they're conducting a thorough check and think they may well overturn a call, why isn't play held at the earliest chance to do so? There were two marks and a boundary throw-in between the behind call and its overturning, ample opportunity to hold play if needed.

Is holding play after a mark or stoppage on half-back really desirable? Not really, I don't think, but it's preferable to what we saw today, and the only other options undermine the league's preferences around things like taking kick-ins quickly (with the old rule about waiting for the goal umpire to finish waving the flag, the ARC's time to call a halt to play for a more thorough review could've been limited to that window). We wouldn't stand for a field umpire deciding 30 seconds after the fact that they'd seen a push in the back in a marking contest (or a video reviewer doing the same), so why should this work any differently? Either they care about getting things right or they care about doing things quickly and keeping the game moving - they can't achieve both without the two colliding headlong sometimes.

When people talk about the AFL being amateurish with this stuff, they're wrong: shambolic detail-dismissive decision-making like this reeks of exactly the sort of executive hubris plaguing most professional spaces.

 

[kingswood71]

Far from even liking WC, but they were ripped off there.
What sort of review is that??
Technology making the game worse.

 

[HairyO]

The AFL have just declared that The Arc called Harmes Out of Bounds.

Eddie has already Tweeted that Collingwood will be suing for the 1977 Premiership cup.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I must be seeing things as it looks like the end of the ball is obscured by the post there and therefore it’s the correct call that a mark was paid.

 

[Scotland]

The AFL have just declared that The Arc called Harmes Out of Bounds.

Eddie has already Tweeted that Collingwood will be suing for the 1977 Premiership cup.

Just stop the clock and have the throw in now.

90 seconds, 49 years - what's the diff?

 

[The Feeder Club]

Who gives a shit if it was correct or not? The goal umpire made the call - a behind. The ARC wasn't asked to check by the umpire, who presumably was confident with her decision, so the ARC should never have become involved.

It was one of the dumbest things I have seen in recent memory, but the important test is what happens now. Do they use the opportunity to recalibrate and go back to only using the ARC for goal umpire decisions when the umpire requests it, so we get never face this stupidity again? Or do they double down?

 

[Scotland]

I must be seeing things as it looks like the end of the ball is obscured by the post there and therefore it’s the correct call that a mark was paid.

It was called a behind. Let's say it was conclusively a mark, the time to review was before the kick in.

Every game they slow down kick ins for unnecessary reviews, then today they decide to do it a minute and a half later when the ball was on centre wing. Could you imagine the reaction if it happened in a game that mattered?

 

[timeforanother22]

I must be seeing things as it looks like the end of the ball is obscured by the post there and therefore it’s the correct call that a mark was paid.

And no one would have a problem with that, had the ball been held up until a review was completed. The issue is that the game continues for nearly a minute before they called it back.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I’m not disputing that it was a late call (55 seconds, not 90), but all the commentators etc who seem to think it was completely over the line before Marshall controlled it.

What footage are they watching!?

 

[SSSSSS]

Saints supporters petitioning the ARC to go back to 09 to correct the Hawkins poster.

 

[SSSSSS]

But yeh this is jumping the shark. Probably the dumbest moment I've ever seen in footy.

 

[GAS PANIC]

The way the AFL works I wouldn't be surprised if they determined mid week to pull something like this in a less publicised game to see what kind of response it gets.

 

[oak79]

ARC shouldn't be used for behinds, unless a review is called on field.

It should only be used for goals (before play restarts), and when called for on field. When play has restarted the opportunity for any arc is done.

That's it. Stop these bs reviews for last touch and behinds. Just back the umpires and get on with it.

The AFL is a joke.

 

[Father Jack]

I’m not disputing that it was a late call (55 seconds, not 90), but all the commentators etc who seem to think it was completely over the line before Marshall controlled it.

What footage are they watching!?

they pause it when he touches it, but when they played the whole vision it did look like it wasn't actually controlled definitively until the next frame when the ball it over the line. Either way it was surprising they thought it was clear enough to warrant an overrule

 

[beside the seaside]

It was called a behind. Let's say it was conclusively a mark, the time to review was before the kick in.

Every game they slow down kick ins for unnecessary reviews, then today they decide to do it a minute and a half later when the ball was on centre wing. Could you imagine the reaction if it happened in a game that mattered?

It's to stop errors like the one that cost Adelaide a finals appearance from the Keays goal. The team can just play on and then you're screwed which Sydney did.

I don't know if the right call was made here but that's the reasoning for it.

 

[The_Todd07]

I must be seeing things as it looks like the end of the ball is obscured by the post there and therefore it’s the correct call that a mark was paid.

Camera isn't directly on the line therefore line from camera to opposite goalpost is not equal to the back of the goal line, it's on an angle.
Extend that to where Marshall marked and what looks like its obscured by the post could very well be slightly over the line.

Should hae been umpires call at the very least

 

[The_Todd07]

ARC shouldn't be used for behinds, unless a review is called on field.

It should only be used for goals (before play restarts), and when called for on field. When play has restarted the opportunity for any arc is done.

That's it. Stop these bs reviews for last touch and behinds. Just back the umpires and get on with it.

The AFL is a joke.

A incorrectly called behind can be just as influential as an incorrect goal, just ask Adelaide fans.

 

[Mop]

A incorrectly called behind can be just as influential as an incorrect goal, just ask Adelaide fans.

It isn’t worth the price the game is paying. This is farcical.

 

[The_Todd07]

It isn’t worth the price the game is paying. This is farcical.

The problem was seemingly no one told the umpires there was a review happening and to hold up the game at the mark, free kick or stoppage.

They tell umpires to hold up in the middle after a review if there's an upstairs review of a goal. No reason the same can't be done with a behind and only have to wipe out 10-15 seconds.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

But yeh this is jumping the shark. Probably the dumbest moment I've ever seen in footy.

Honestly, I watched the game today, and when Marshall took the Mark and immediately remonstrated towards the Goal Umpire that he'd marked it - I was actually waiting for it to be reviewed.

I was shocked when it wasn't.

Then 40 seconds laters, I literally thought to myself 'it'd be hilarious if they called this back after this long....'.

So when they actually did that, I wasn't shocked at all. I was pretty much expecting it.

It seemed quite logical to me.

 

[Orfullrules]

Less technology in sport would be appreciated.